The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2012 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A Study to evaluate and compare the Efficacy of Preprocedural Mouthrinsing and High Volume Evacuator Attachment Alone and in Combination in Reducing the Amount of Viable Aerosols Produced during Ultrasonic Scaling Procedure

Sachin Malagi, Nihal Devker, Jyoti Mohitey, Akshay Vibhute, Vivek Singh Chouhan, Prithviraj Chavan, Rosemary Joseph

Citation Information : Malagi S, Devker N, Mohitey J, Vibhute A, Chouhan VS, Chavan P, Joseph R. A Study to evaluate and compare the Efficacy of Preprocedural Mouthrinsing and High Volume Evacuator Attachment Alone and in Combination in Reducing the Amount of Viable Aerosols Produced during Ultrasonic Scaling Procedure. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13 (5):681-689.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1209

Published Online: 01-10-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background and objectives

In recent years, ultrasonics has gained prime importance and is considered a valuable tool in the dentist's armamentarium. Studies have confirmed that an aerosolized bacterial contamination is produced during the use of ultrasonic scalers.

Aim

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of preprocedural mouthrinsing using a bis-biguanide (chlorhexidine gluconate 0.2%) and high volume evacuator attachment alone and in combination in reducing the amount of viable aerosols produced during ultrasonic scaling procedure.

Materials and methods

A total 90 subjects were assigned to group I (who rinsed with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate prior to scaling), group II (high volume evacuator attachment was used during ultrasonic scaling) and group III (who rinsed with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate prior to scaling and in whom high volume evacuator attachment was used during ultrasonic scaling). Control group consisted of subject's whose mouth was scaled using a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler without preprocedural rinsing or high volume suction.

Aerosol samples were collected using blood agar plates. The blood agar plates containing the aerosol sample were taken to the microbiology department as soon as the sampling was over and were subjected to aerobic culturing.

Results

The values obtained showed that all the three groups were effective in reducing the mean colony forming units (CFUs).

Conclusion

The results of this study showed that preprocedural rinse and high volume suction were effective when used alone as well as together in reducing the microbial load of the aerosols produced during ultrasonic scaling. There was a significant reduction in the number of CFUs in aerosol samples obtained.

How to cite this article

Devker N, Mohitey J, Vibhute A, Chouhan VS, Chavan P, Malagi S, Joseph R. A Study to evaluate and compare the Efficacy of Preprocedural Mouthrinsing and High Volume Evacuator Attachment Alone and in Combination in Reducing the Amount of Viable Aerosols Produced during Ultrasonic Scaling Procedure. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(5): 681-689.


PDF Share
  1. Hepatitis B and dental personnel. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;106:219-22.
  2. Efficacy of preoperative oral rinsing to reduce air contamination during use of air turbine handpieces. J Am Dent Assoc 1964;69:715-18.
  3. Efficacy of pre-procedural rinsing with an antiseptic in reducing viable bacteria in dental aerosols. J Periodontology 1992;63:821-24.
  4. Reducing bacteria in dental aerosols. J Am Dent Assoc 1993:124:56-58.
  5. Is mouthrinsing before dental procedures worthwhile? J Am Dent Assoc 1992;123:75-80.
  6. Efficacy of pre-procedural rinsing with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 1% povidine iodine in reducing the viable bacteria in dental aerosols. JISP 1998;1:2:43-45.
  7. Aerosol reduction during air polishing. Quintessence Int 1999:30:623-28.
  8. Reduction of aerosols produced by ultrasonic scalers. J Periodontology 1996;67:28-32.
  9. The effectiveness of an aerosol reduction device. J Periodontology 1997;68:45-49.
  10. Indices used in dental epidemiology. In: Peter Soben (Ed). Essentials of preventive and community dentistry, (1st ed) 1999;471-79.
  11. Practical medical microbiology (14th ed) Churchill Livingstone 1996;104-06.
  12. Microbial aerosols in general dental practice. Br Dent J 2000;189(12):664-67.
  13. Evaluating spatter and aerosol contamination. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125:579-84.
  14. Aerosol and spatter contamination from the operative site during ultrasonic scaling. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:1241-49.
  15. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs and ADA Council on Dental Practice. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127(5):672-80.
  16. Dissemination of organismbearing droplets by high-speed dental drills. J Prosth Dent 1966;16(1):133-39.
  17. Ultrasound in dentistry. J Dent 1992;20(1):11-15.
  18. Bacterial aerosols in the dental clinic. Int Dent J 2000;50:103-07.
  19. Ocular injuries sustained in the dental office. JADA 1978;97:885-88.
  20. Reducing bacterial aerosol contamination with a chlorhexidine gluconate pre-rinse. JADA 1995;126:1634-39.
  21. Reduction of microbial contamination from ultrasonic scalers. BDJ 1978:145:76-78.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.